The Supreme Court has sent a clear message:Freedom of speech is not a favour — it is a Fundamental Right Duty of Police to Uphold Freedom of Speech: Supreme Court Clarifies in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2026)Article 19(1)(a) and Articles 12, 21, 51-A(a), 32 and 226 Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression— Duty of […]
Can the police silence you for what you say? Read More »
The case arose from the murder of political leader Ramavatar Jaggi in 2003. The State police initially registered an FIR and filed a charge sheet; however, due to dissatisfaction expressed by the victim’s family, the investigation was later transferred to the CBI, which filed a fresh charge sheet implicating, among others, Amit Jogi. The trial
On 12-04-2018, the respondent visited the beauty salon situated in the ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi, for a haircut. Alleging that her hair was cut much shorter than instructed, resulting in emotional trauma and professional setbacks, she filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in July 2018. By order dated
₹2 Crores for faulty haircut? Compensation reduced to ₹25 Lakh Read More »
In the instant matter, the petitioners are engaged in the business of buying and selling gold ornaments, gold bars, coins and precious stones and have been carrying on such business in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In July 2024, a company named Dallas E-com Infotech Private Limited (“the Customer”) approached the petitioners for
The Supreme Court held that reserve category candidates who score above the cut-off mark for open category candidates cannot be denied equality of treatment merely on account of their caste or community. The Rajasthan High Court had advertised 2756 vacancies for Junior Judicial Assistants, involving a written test followed by a typewriting test. Several reserved
Reserved Candidates in General Category Seats Read More »
The Supreme Court held that the benchmark for adjudging medical negligence is the lowest standard of professional skill and competence expected of a medical practitioner. It clarified that “deficiency in service” in patient care is distinct from “medical negligence” and that the two concepts must not be enmeshed. The case involved an appellant who alleged
Distinction between “Deficiency in Service” and “Medical Negligence” Read More »
The Supreme Court held that timelines imposed by High Courts to conclude investigations are the exception rather than the norm. It held that Courts must respect the practical realities of investigations and should only impose deadlines in situations where inaction would lead to adverse consequences. In this case, three individuals approached the Allahabad High Court
Time Bound directions for Completing Investigations Read More »
The Supreme Court held that persons against whom criminal proceedings are pending are not absolutely disentitled to a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, the appellant, sought renewal of his ordinary passport after its expiry while proceedings were pending before the NIA Court, Ranchi, and a criminal appeal against conviction
Renewal of Passport Pending Criminal Proceedings Read More »
The Supreme Court held that leading questions are permissible in cross-examinations and that answers elicited in response do not, for that reason alone, lose probative value. The Court further noted that omissions in examination-in-chief can be fixed at the time of cross-examination. In 1998, the appellant executed a will bequeathing his properties to eight of
Leading Questions in Cross-Examination Read More »
The Supreme Court held that in cases of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, the evidence of minor victims must be appreciated with sensitivity and realism. It held that the credible testimony of a minor victim can, by itself, sustain a conviction and cannot be rejected on the basis of minor inconsistencies. K.P. Kirankumar and
Appreciation of Testimonial Evidence of Minor Victims Read More »
Terms & Conditions
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:
The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising. I AGREE